Allowed

Hanumayhya S/O Basappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 May 2023CRL.P/100801/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC regarding offences under the NDPS Act. The Court allowed the petition, granting bail in the event of arrest, noting that if co-accused in possession of contraband are granted bail, the owner of the vehicle transporting it is also entitled to bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with one undertaking for the like sum; bail to be operative only in event of arrest in the specified crime.

Hanumayhya S/O Basappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CRL.P No. 100801 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100801 OF 2023 (438-)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

HANUMAYYA S/O BASAPPA AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O DEVALAPUR VILLAGE, TQ. KAMPLI, DIST. BALLARI-583101

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. B.C.JNANAYYA SWAMI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by K MSOMASHEKAR K MSOMASHEKAR Location: highcourtkarnatakaDharwad bench Date: 2023.05.19 10:42:36 +0530

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ( THROUGH GANGAVATHI EXCISE P.S ) REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH AT DHARWAD

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.PC., SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO ENALRGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO 38/2021-22 IS REGISTERED BY THE EXCISE INSPECTOR GANGAVATI EXCISE POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER

¶16

2 - CRL.P No. 100801 of 2023

¶17

SECTIONS 20(B), 22,25 AND 8(C) OF NDPS ACT 1985.BAIL APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED U/S 438 OF CR.PC., IN CRL.MISC NO. 1222/2022 BEFORE PRL DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOPPAL HAS BEEN REJECTED.POST THIS CRIMINAL PETITION BEFORE HON BLE SINGLE JUDGE FOR ORDERS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petitioner is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail, for it having been turned out by the concerned Court in terms of its order dated 09.01.2023 in Criminal Misc. No.1222/2022 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, at Koppal.

¶20

Heard Smt. B.C.Jnanayyaswamy, learned

¶21

counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned HCGP for the respondent.

¶22

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶23

A Crime comes to be registered on 01.02.2022 for

¶24

the offences punishable under Sections 20(b), 22, 25 and 8(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 against two accused Nos.1 & 2 . The police after the investigation roped the petitioner, as accused No.3. The

¶25

3 - CRL.P No. 100801 of 2023

¶26

accused Nos.1 and 2 were in fact apprehended and found that, they were in possession of Ganja a contraband substance to the tune of 200 grams. The concerned Court in terms of its order dated 08.02.2022 grants anticipatory bail to accused Nos.1 and 2 who were in fact caught in possession of 200 grams of Ganja. Since the petitioner was absconding, a non-bailable warrant was issued for his appearance. The petitioner then files an application seeking grant of anticipatory bail, which comes to be turned down by the concerned Court.

¶27

It is not in dispute that, the accused Nos.1 and 2 who were caught in possession of 200 grams of Ganja are granted anticipatory bail by the concerned Court. The reason rendered by the learned Sessions Judge to deny the anticipatory bail to the petitioner is that, whether the petitioner is involved in the alleged offence along with accused No.1 is the matter of trial and therefore, the anticipatory bail is rejected. I decline to accept the said reason, as, if the accused Nos.1 & 2 are granted bail. The

¶28

4 - CRL.P No. 100801 of 2023

¶29

accused No.3 who is the owner of the bike in which contraband substance is found is also entitled for an anticipatory bail.

¶30

For the aforesaid reasons, I deem it appropriate

¶31

to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner by imposing the

¶32

certain conditions. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

This criminal petition is allowed, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.38 of 2021-22 of Gangavathi Excise Police Station relating to Criminal Miscellaneous No.1222/2022 pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal on the following conditions:

¶35

(i) The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court;

¶36

(ii) The petitioner shall be regular in appearing before the Court on every date of hearing as also when called upon to do so by the trial Court;

¶37

5 - CRL.P No. 100801 of 2023

¶38

(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or cause any threat to any of the prosecution witness/s in any manner.

¶39

(iv) The petitioner shall appear before he Investigating Officer as and when called and submit all documents and details as may be called upon by the Investigating Officer.

¶40

(v) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission.

¶41

(vi) In the event of violation of any of the above terms, the above bail shall stand automatically cancelled.

¶42

The observations made above are only for the purpose of consideration of the application for anticipatory bail and the same shall not in any manner influence the trial. The trial Court shall consider the case on its merits and without being influenced by this order.

¶43

Sd JUDGE

¶44

SVH

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Hanumayhya S/O Basappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanumayhya S/O Basappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Vijayalakshmi Enterprises Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (Kptcl)

M/S Krishi Infratech Vs the Union of India Represented by the Secretary

Karnataka Commercial and Industrial Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Nagaraja Vs the State of Karnataka

Veerayya Kandagalmath Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Hajilal S/O Hajianwarsab Pailwan Vs the State of Karnataka